And the winnah of the District 2 city council
election is....
May 17, 2007 23:12 | Permalink
.....the Mayah, Tom
Menino! Yes, once again, the Mayor's hand-picked
candidate is elected, with the help of his vast
machine, and the City Council's supermajority Menino
Nine-O remains intact, ready to rubber-stamp his
every order.
Isn't there something illegal about the Mayor picking the City Council? Something Consitutionally wrong, like "breach of separation of powers"? Abuse of power in getting all those tax-payer-salaried City Hall employees to work for him and his chosen candidates? Is there a lawyer in the house?!?
Menino was quoted in a newspaper as saying that he didn't endorse either candidate, and his organization just does what it wants. 'nuff said.
There is no hope for democracy in Boston. It's not just the "strong mayor, weak council" problem. We have no checks and balances. We don't have three branches of government. We only have an executive branch. The legislative branch, sidelined in 1960 by the BRA's stealth take-over of planning and zoning, gets paid (i.e., pays itself) handsomely to remain out of the way. The judicial branch is largely fended off by the BRA's clever legal shenanigans that shield its dealings from lawsuit, and by the council's inability to hire a lawyer. If we want to resurrect democracy here, in its cradle, we'll need a major restructuring -- and an electoral revolt. If we just sit on our duffs and take it....we can't complain. In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.
For the most part, the press has a giant blind spot on Boston electoral politics. Few in the media have pondered the outcome of this race -- how it happened and what it really means. But one good piece on Boston's political idiocy just came out; read the Keohane article in Boston Magazine, and laugh and weep....
Isn't there something illegal about the Mayor picking the City Council? Something Consitutionally wrong, like "breach of separation of powers"? Abuse of power in getting all those tax-payer-salaried City Hall employees to work for him and his chosen candidates? Is there a lawyer in the house?!?
Menino was quoted in a newspaper as saying that he didn't endorse either candidate, and his organization just does what it wants. 'nuff said.
There is no hope for democracy in Boston. It's not just the "strong mayor, weak council" problem. We have no checks and balances. We don't have three branches of government. We only have an executive branch. The legislative branch, sidelined in 1960 by the BRA's stealth take-over of planning and zoning, gets paid (i.e., pays itself) handsomely to remain out of the way. The judicial branch is largely fended off by the BRA's clever legal shenanigans that shield its dealings from lawsuit, and by the council's inability to hire a lawyer. If we want to resurrect democracy here, in its cradle, we'll need a major restructuring -- and an electoral revolt. If we just sit on our duffs and take it....we can't complain. In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.
For the most part, the press has a giant blind spot on Boston electoral politics. Few in the media have pondered the outcome of this race -- how it happened and what it really means. But one good piece on Boston's political idiocy just came out; read the Keohane article in Boston Magazine, and laugh and weep....
|
'Trow da bums out!'
Nov 10, 2006 09:41 | Permalink
So this is what democracy looks like! What an
election day it was!
Politicians have to be held accountable. Public services has to be an honorable profession. Governments must serve the public interest. Corruption is unacceptable.
This sounds sort of quaint these days, but this election showed that the fundamentals of democracy still lie there, in our hearts, even if we've all but given up on getting them.
And the way to get decent public servants -- aside from flooding them with e-mails and calls when they try something they shouldn't -- is to let them know that election time is accountability time.
But it won't be accountability time unless we do some basic reforms.
The first is to stop the buying and selling of our government. We have to get the legal bribery of campaign contributions out. So we have to force them to pass public campaign financing laws. In Massachusetts, we even voted to do that in 1998, and they repealed it in the dead of night.
And the reason they could get away with that is that the legislature has exempted itself from the "sunshine laws," the Open Meeting and Public Record Laws it wrote for other government bodies to obey. So our lawmakers can hash out these deals and ram them through on voice votes and no one even knows what's happening. So the second thing we have to do is this: The legislature must be made subject to the "sunshine laws."
Third, we need term limits for all offices. No one is so good that power doesn't corrupt them eventually. No one is so smart that s/he can't be replaced. In Massachusetts it's almost impossible to "t'row da bums out" -- we have a 98% incumbent re-election rate. (Boston may be even worse!) Working in secret on behalf of big-money donors, they keep themselves in power forever.
It's not democracy if we go to the voting booth -- and there's no viable choice. So: Fourth, we need to allow free expression of more political choices. We need "Instant Run-off" voting. Almost half of the state's registered voters are not enrolled with a party! They vote reluctantly for Democrats or Republicans -- or drop out of voting altogether because they want something different, and have no way to demand it at the polls without "throwing away" their vote or worrying about handing victory over to the mainstream candidate they want least -- the so-called "Nader" effect. Instant Run-off lets voters rank their candidate choices, and automatically re-assigns their votes to the next choice if the first doesn't have enough to win. With Instant Run-off, you could have voted for Ross, or Mihos, to send a message, and ranked your preferred Dem or Republican second to make your vote count. Independents will have a lot more influence on the D or R agenda if they can bring in the winning margin. I wonder how the independents would have done under Instant Run-off...we'd have seen the true support for their platforms. The initiative for "ballot freedom," or "fusion voting," described in our 10/29 blog posting, didn't pass. But it was on the right track. Now it's time to start an initiative for Instant Run-off, which gives the independents their own candidates and their own voice.
So, now that we've flexed our electoral muscle and seen its power, let's put it to use and get what we need -- with the help of the public offficials, or without it.
Politicians have to be held accountable. Public services has to be an honorable profession. Governments must serve the public interest. Corruption is unacceptable.
This sounds sort of quaint these days, but this election showed that the fundamentals of democracy still lie there, in our hearts, even if we've all but given up on getting them.
And the way to get decent public servants -- aside from flooding them with e-mails and calls when they try something they shouldn't -- is to let them know that election time is accountability time.
But it won't be accountability time unless we do some basic reforms.
The first is to stop the buying and selling of our government. We have to get the legal bribery of campaign contributions out. So we have to force them to pass public campaign financing laws. In Massachusetts, we even voted to do that in 1998, and they repealed it in the dead of night.
And the reason they could get away with that is that the legislature has exempted itself from the "sunshine laws," the Open Meeting and Public Record Laws it wrote for other government bodies to obey. So our lawmakers can hash out these deals and ram them through on voice votes and no one even knows what's happening. So the second thing we have to do is this: The legislature must be made subject to the "sunshine laws."
Third, we need term limits for all offices. No one is so good that power doesn't corrupt them eventually. No one is so smart that s/he can't be replaced. In Massachusetts it's almost impossible to "t'row da bums out" -- we have a 98% incumbent re-election rate. (Boston may be even worse!) Working in secret on behalf of big-money donors, they keep themselves in power forever.
It's not democracy if we go to the voting booth -- and there's no viable choice. So: Fourth, we need to allow free expression of more political choices. We need "Instant Run-off" voting. Almost half of the state's registered voters are not enrolled with a party! They vote reluctantly for Democrats or Republicans -- or drop out of voting altogether because they want something different, and have no way to demand it at the polls without "throwing away" their vote or worrying about handing victory over to the mainstream candidate they want least -- the so-called "Nader" effect. Instant Run-off lets voters rank their candidate choices, and automatically re-assigns their votes to the next choice if the first doesn't have enough to win. With Instant Run-off, you could have voted for Ross, or Mihos, to send a message, and ranked your preferred Dem or Republican second to make your vote count. Independents will have a lot more influence on the D or R agenda if they can bring in the winning margin. I wonder how the independents would have done under Instant Run-off...we'd have seen the true support for their platforms. The initiative for "ballot freedom," or "fusion voting," described in our 10/29 blog posting, didn't pass. But it was on the right track. Now it's time to start an initiative for Instant Run-off, which gives the independents their own candidates and their own voice.
So, now that we've flexed our electoral muscle and seen its power, let's put it to use and get what we need -- with the help of the public offficials, or without it.
Ballot Question 2: Fusion Voting
Oct 29, 2006 23:55 | Permalink
On November 7, we'll have three ballot questions to
vote on.
Question 2 is "Ballot Freedom," also called "fusion voting."
Many people would like to vote for a third-party candidate -- to send a message about what they want, even if that candidate can't win -- but they are afraid to throw away their vote, or to be a "spoiler," threatening the victory of the mainstream candidate they prefer and inadvertently helping the candidate they want least (think Nader or Gore vs. Bush).
It's something like run-off voting, where voters rank their preferred candidates and their vote is automatically transferred to their choice with the greatest number of votes. Instant run-off is better because the party platform is more specifically articulated by a party candidate. But right now, we have a chance to vote for fusion, and it's a start toward more political representation across the spectrum.
With fusion voting, different parties can support the same candidate, but the vote numbers show where the support came from, giving the independents some real power in shaping the winner's agenda. It's a tool for coalition building and focusing campaign energy and resources on a candidate that would be more specifically accountable to all of those who vote him/her into office.
It's all very well explained at www.massballotfreedom.com.
Fusion voting isn't an experiment; it has a long history, and is still used in several states. I think it's a great way to bring out more voters, because they know that their vote will say what they mean.
Does anyone know of a down side to it?
Question 2 is "Ballot Freedom," also called "fusion voting."
Many people would like to vote for a third-party candidate -- to send a message about what they want, even if that candidate can't win -- but they are afraid to throw away their vote, or to be a "spoiler," threatening the victory of the mainstream candidate they prefer and inadvertently helping the candidate they want least (think Nader or Gore vs. Bush).
It's something like run-off voting, where voters rank their preferred candidates and their vote is automatically transferred to their choice with the greatest number of votes. Instant run-off is better because the party platform is more specifically articulated by a party candidate. But right now, we have a chance to vote for fusion, and it's a start toward more political representation across the spectrum.
With fusion voting, different parties can support the same candidate, but the vote numbers show where the support came from, giving the independents some real power in shaping the winner's agenda. It's a tool for coalition building and focusing campaign energy and resources on a candidate that would be more specifically accountable to all of those who vote him/her into office.
It's all very well explained at www.massballotfreedom.com.
Fusion voting isn't an experiment; it has a long history, and is still used in several states. I think it's a great way to bring out more voters, because they know that their vote will say what they mean.
Does anyone know of a down side to it?